Thursday 31 March 2011

How to Use the OT Law in the New Testament

A brother wrote to me:

"John - I say this with love, but can you explain:

1. If the 10 commandments are all underlying principles - how is the 4th commandment going?"


There are a number of timeless spiritual principles which the observance of the seventh-day sabbath gave expression to. Those underlying spiritual principles are eternal - they remain part of God's eternal nature. But today we live-out those truths differently to the way they were lived-out under the Old Covenant. The ethics are timeless - but the vehicle of expression of those ethics, given to Israel, was only temporary.

Let's consider some of the underlying meanings of the seventh-day sabbath. Firstly, the sabbath was to remind Israel that it was the Lord who sanctifies Israel. Secondly, it was in God's nature to give man a rest. The seventh-day sabbath was the model which Moses gave Israel in order to bring-home those two ethics.

Now let's consider what the New Testament says about those two ethics. Firstly, it says Christ has sanctified us. Secondly, faith is our rest. By faith in Christ, we fulfill the ethics which the seventh-day sabbath was merely a temporary model of.

"But the seventh-day sabbath predated the Law," some may say.

Let's go back to creation and see what it says. It says God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified the seventh day. Notice the main point of the sabbath was sanctification. Question: did God resume His work of creation again, on the eighth day? No. The seventh day was the beginning of a permanent state of rest.

Now let's see what the New Testament says about that. In Hebrews it says that we who have entered into God's rest (God's permanent state of rest) have ceased from our own works (permanently) as God also ceased from His. It's the rest of saving-faith, as opposed to working under the Law, for salvation. Through Jesus, we have entered into a permanent, sanctifying "sabbath" - a rest which the Law, having only a shadow of good things to come, could not deliver.

That's why it said in Psalms, "A rest remains for the people of God". The cycle of seventh-day rests was not the true rest! It was only a model, a foreshadowing, of that true rest (true sanctification) which was still to come. And Jesus brought it!

There isn't any indication that the Apostles imposed a cycle of seventh-day sabbaths on new believers. If that was important, as Seventh Day Adventists believe it is, then the Council at Jerusalem in the Book of Acts would have been the ideal time for the Holy Spirit to indicate its importance. But instead, the Apostles and elders decided to put no such burden on the churches.

That's why Paul taught that believers need not let anyone judge them in the matter of sabbaths - because Christ, Paul said, is the true fulfillment of it.

Nevertheless, Paul also allowed that if a brother, weaker in the faith, felt it necessary to observe one day as special, then we who are stronger in faith and in conscience ought to bear with that. Neither group ought to judge the other, said Paul - for both groups believed they were honoring God by what they did.

Although the real point of the sabbath is about sanctification and spiritual rest, God still likes to give people physical rest too. That remains part of God's nature. There is no teaching in the New Testament which demands this should be expressed by a cycle of seventh-day sabbaths. Neither does the New Testament teach that the seventh-day sabbath is replaced by a sabbath on the first day of the week (the Lord's Day). Rather, the ethic of physical rest is expressed under the New Testament through actions such as: masters are commanded to treat their servants ethically, knowing that they shall give account to Christ; believers are commanded not to have a love of money; we are commanded not to destroy our bodies (the Temple), etc.

Before God's Law was given, the seventh day which God sanctified was a permanent state of rest - not a repeat cycle of seventh-day rests. God's intention after the fall was to eventually bring man back to this state of permanent spiritual 'rest' - which He later did through Christ - but in the interim, He gave Israel a temporary model - the law of the sabbath - to illustrate His promise to bring in that rest.

Under the Law, they were reminded every seven days of their need for God to provide that true sanctification, the true rest. But today, through Christ, we are in it! That's the Gospel!


"2. How can you say with any logical consistency that underlying principles apply - but external forms don't?"

God's nature is eternal. "I am the Lord, I change not." God is love. God is holy. The Law was given to model God's nature.

For example, God's holiness demands that without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins; while God's love teaches that there can be a holy substitute sacrificed for sin. God gave them the law of sacrifices to illustrate this. But it was only an outward form, a model, a shadow. Those principles were expressed finally and fully in Christ. The underlying principle still exists - that's why the Blood continues to bear witness in heaven - that's why we show forth the Lord's death til He come, through the celebration of the Lord's table. But the outward form of animal sacrifices has passed away.

The underlying principles of every point of law in the Law are eternal and unchanging. But how those ethics should be expressed in the New Covenant differs in many cases from how they were expressed under the Old Covenant - and like you said, it takes discernment to know how to apply it. (And the best way to 'discern' is to follow what Paul said about it.)

Consider a less obvious example:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn".
It meant, Israelietes weren't allowed to prevent the ox from having a bite to eat while it was labouring.

Now let's see how Paul applied it, in the New Testament. Paul said that God gave them that point of law, not merely because He cared about oxen - but for man's benefit. Paul drew a deeper principle out of it which Paul claimed was the real point which that point of law served to illustrate. Paul said God wrote it for us, for men. The real point was that all labour deserves payment. Then he applied it to the Ministry, and said that preachers of the Gospel deserved to earn a living from their work as Ministers of the Gospel.

Notice Paul didn't say we should still today never muzzle an ox while its treading corn. The real point is: all labourers, including preachers, deserve to be paid. Paying a wage fulfills the unchanging ethic of that particular point of law.

As for oxen, they should be allowed to eat too. But it doesn't necessarily mean a muzzle should never be used. You can feed it before it treads the corn if you want. Or you can give it a break halfway through its work, and feed it. But whether or not you use a muzzle isn't really the point. The underlying principle - which applies mainly to men but also to oxen - is that no labourer should be denied his pay.


"3. How can you separate what is an underlying principle - and what is an external form? Specifically, look at Leviticus chapters 18-20, and try and separate principles from forms."


The best way is to see what the New Testament teaches about each particular point of law. It's called "rightly dividing the word of truth".

Another way to do it is to ask: what does this point of Law teach me about love and righteousness? (Because love is the fulfilling of the Law, said Paul). And ask, What difference does the Cross make? That will help you identify the underlying ethic. Then ask, How can I best express this ethic today?

Jesus said that the New Commandement (love) is the same as the Old Commandment (the Law). In other words, the Law was given to Israel to teach them what it would look like to walk in love. Today, we have the Spirit in us to cause us to walk in love. But how we express our love - for God, for our fellowman - will differ in many ways from how they were required to express it under the Old Covenant.

For example, in olden days, a person expressed his love for God by bringing an animal sacrifice. Nowadays, we express our love for God through giving thanks for Jesus.

God's righteousness and love are unchanging - but the way we express it today will not be the same in every circumstance, while in some circumstances it might be the same.

For example, we won't commit adultery - because love still teaches us not to commit adultery - same as it did under the Law.

But we don't need to burn incense - because our prayers are as incense. Because Jesus said the Father is looking for worshipers who worship in spirit, not in outward forms.

Love is the key. The New Testament teaches us how to discern.

And reading the Law still has benefits - for the lawless, said Paul.

Let's look at Levitucus 18-20, like you suggested. Let's pick two points of Law: one which prohibited incest and marrying family relations; another which prohibited harvesting the corners of your field. Let's follow my method for 'discernment' of 'covenant relevancy' , 'rightly dividing the Word' by distinguishing principle from form. We will ask:

1. What does the particular point of law tell us about love?
2. What does the particular point of law tell us about righteousness?
3. What difference does the Cross make?
3. What does the New Testament teach about it?

Those are the questions I ask about every point of Law.

Okay, the law against incest and marrying close relatives. It tells me of the sanctity of marriage. It tells me to honour close relatives. It tells me of the inappropriateness of marriage to certain relationships. It tells me that sex outside marriage is unrighteous. The cross makes us want to do that even more. And in the New Testament, Paul wrote to the Corinthians to temporarily put someone out of the church for having his father's wife.

Conclusion: it's pretty clear - as New Testament believers, walking in love - we won't commit incest, we won't have sexual intercourse with our father's wife - just the same as they shouldn't have under the Law.

Now, the law about not harvesting the corner of your field. What does it teach us about love? It teaches us to leave a little bit of work for poor people to do. About righteousness? It teaches us that it's okay to make a profit, but at the same time we should have some desire to give opportunity to the poor. What difference does the cross make? Jesus exemplified those morals on the cross! Therefore, we also will want to be considerate of the poor, while not neglecting our own profit. And what does the New Testament teach? Well it never actually says it's wrong to harvest the corners of your fields. But it does say to consider the poor. It does say to give some employment to the poor.

Conclusion: it's okay to harvest the corners of your fields - we don't have to leave them unharvested - so long as we are finding other ways to be equally considerate to the poor.

We could follow this process with every point of Law in Leviticus 18-20.

Love fulfills each point (real point) of law - but the outward forms may or may not be followed today in the same way as they were under the Law.

"I'm happy & willing to review Covenant relevancy ... but Torah still applies - internally, and externally."


I think you're actually saying the same thing as me, just using different terms.

You might come to slightly different conclusions though. But that's to be expected - even in Paul's day, believers had different levels of freedom from the observances of the Law. And Paul said to allow that, to a certain extent.

"I cry for weak Christians that don't get fed properly. Let is be noted that it is the Torah-based Christians that go around focusing on the Father, Messiahship, Lordship, righteousness, feeding the sheep with quality food .... concepts that are sorely missing in most Sunday churches."


I know how you feel. But the church I got saved in had really good teaching which focused on all the things you admire - without actually keeping any of the outward forms of the Law.

Christ is the end of the Law (not just part of the Law, but the Law) for righteousness, to everyone who believes, said Paul. And yet He said, We fulfill the Law (not just part of the Law, but all of it).

The whole law is finished. We still fulfill the whole Law. How can this be? Because LOVE - the underlying principles of the Law - is the Law and the Prophets and it is Christ's New Commandment which is the same as the Old Commandment.

In What Way Might the Law Be Used in the N.T.?

Someone wrote to me:

John - I say this with love, but can you explain:

1. If the 10 commandments are all underlying principles - how is the 4th commandment going?


There are a number of timeless spiritual principles which the observance of the seventh-day sabbath gave expression to. Those underlying spiritual principles are eternal - they remain part of God's eternal nature. But today we live-out those truths differently to the way they were lived-out under the Old Covenant. The ethics are timeless - but the vehicle of expression of those ethics, given to Israel, was only temporary.

Let's consider some of the underlying meanings of the seventh-day sabbath. Firstly, it was the Lord who sanctifies Israel. Secondly, it was in God's nature to give man a rest. The seventh-day sabbath was a model which Moses gave Israel in order to bring-home those two ethics.

Now let's consider what the New Testament says about those two ethics. Firstly, Christ has sanctified us. Secondly, faith is our rest. By faith in Christ, we fulfill the ethics which the seventh-day sabbath was merely a temporary model of.

"But the seventh-day sabbath predated the Law," some may say.

Let's go back to creation and see what it says. It says God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified the seventh day. Notice the main point of the sabbath was sanctification. Question: did God resume His work of creation again, on the eighth day? No. The seventh day was the beginning of a permanent state of rest.

Now let's see what the New Testament says about that. In Hebrews it says that we who have entered into God's rest (God's permanent state of rest) have ceased from our own works (permanently) as God also ceased from His. It's the rest of saving-faith, as opposed to working for salvation. Through Jesus, we have entered into a permanent, sanctifying "sabbath" which the Law, having only a shadow of good things to come, could not deliver.

That's why it says in Psalms, "A rest remains for the people of God". The cycle of seventh-day rests was not the true rest! It was only a model, a foreshadowing, of that true rest (true sanctification) which was still to come. And Jesus brought it!

There isn't any indication that the Apostles imposed a cycle of seventh-day sabbaths on new believers. If that was important, as Seventh Day Adventists believe it is, then the Council at Jerusalem in the Book of Acts would have been the ideal time for the Holy Spirit to indicate its importance. But instead, the Apostles and elders decided to put no such burden on the churches.

That's why Paul taught that believers need not let anyone judge them in the matter of sabbaths - because Christ, Paul said, is the true fulfillment of it.

Nevertheless, Paul also allowed that if a brother, weaker in the faith, felt it necessary to observe one day as special, then we who are stronger in faith and conscience ought to bear with that. Neither group ought to judge the other, said Paul - for both groups believed they were honoring God by what they did.

Although the real point of the sabbath is about sanctification and spiritual rest, God still likes to give people physical rest too. That remains part of God's nature. There is no teaching in the New Testament which demands this should be expressed by a cycle of seventh-day sabbaths. Neither does the New Testament teach that the seventh-day sabbath is replaced by a sabbath on the first day of the week (the Lord's Day). Rather, the ethic of physical rest is expressed under the New Testament through actions such as: masters are commanded to treat their servants ethically, knowing that they shall give account to Christ; believers are commanded not to have a love of money; we are commanded not to destroy our bodies (the Temple), etc.

Before God's Law was given, the seventh day which God sanctified was a permanent state of rest - not a repeat cycle of seventh-day rests. God's intention after the fall was to eventually bring man back to this state of permanent spiritual 'rest' - which He later did through Christ - but in the interim, He gave Israel a temporary model to illustrate His promise to bring in that rest. That's the Gospel!


2. How can you say with any logical consistency that underlying principles apply - but external forms don't?


God's nature is eternal. "I am the Lord, I change not." God is love. God is holy. The Law was given to model God's nature.

For example, God's holiness demands that without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins; while God's love teaches that there can be a holy substitute sacrificed for sin. God gave them the law of sacrifices to illustrate this. But it was only an outward form, a model, a shadow. Those principles were expressed finally and fully in Christ. The underlying principle still exists - that's why the Blood continues to bear witness in heaven - that's why we show forth the Lord's death til He come, through the celebration of the Lord's table. But the outward form of animal sacrifices has passed away.

The underlying principles of every point of law in the Law are eternal and unchanging. But how they should be expressed in the New Covenant varies - and like you said, it takes discernment to know how. (And the best way to 'discern' is to follow what Paul said about it.)

Consider a less obvious example:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". It meant, Israelietes weren't allowed to prevent the ox from having a bite to eat while it was labouring.

Now let's see how Paul applied it, in the New Testament. Paul said that God gave them that point of law, not merely because He cared about oxen - but for man's benefit. Paul drew a deeper principle out of it, which Paul claimed was the real point which that point of law served to illustrate. Paul said God wrote it for us, for men. Paul said the real point was that all labour deserves payment. Then he applied it to the Ministry, and said that preachers of the Gospel deserved to earn a living from their work as Ministers of the Gospel.

Notice Paul didn't say we should still today never muzzle an ox while its treading corn. The real point is: all labourers, including preachers, deserve to be paid. That fulfills the unchanging ethic of that law. As for oxen, they should be allowed to eat too. But you can feed it before it treads the corn if you want. Or you can give it a break halfway through its work to feed it. But whether or not you use a muzzle isn't really the point. The underlying principle - which applies mainly to men but also to oxen - is that no labourer should be denied his pay.


3. How can you separate what is an underlying principle - and what is an external form? Specifically, look at Leviticus chapters 18-20, and try and separate principles from forms.


The best way is to see what the New Testament teaches. It's called "rightly dividing the word of truth".

Another way to do it is to ask: what does this point of Law teach me about love and righteousness? (Because love is the fulfilling of the Law, said Paul). That will help you identify the underlying ethic. Then ask, How can I best express this ethic today?

Jesus said that the New Commandement (love) is the same as the Old Commandment (the Law). In other words, the Law was given to Israel to teach them what it would look like to walk in love. Today, we have the Spirit in us to cause us to walk in love. But how we express our love - for God, for our fellowman - will differ in many ways.

For example, in olden days, a person expressed his love for God by bringing an animal sacrifice. Nowadays, we express our love for God through giving thanks for Jesus.

God's righteousness and love are unchanging - but the way we express it today will not be the same in every circumstance, while in some circumstances it will be the same.

For example, we won't commit adultery - because love still teaches us not to commit adultery - same as it did under the Law.

Love is the key.

The New Testament teaches us how to discern.

And reading the Law still has benefits - for the lawless, said Paul.

Let's look at Levitucus 18-20, like you suggested. Let's pick two points of Law: one, prohibited incest and marrying family relations; another, prohibited harvesting the corners of your field. Let's follow my method for 'discernment' of 'covenant relevancy' , 'rightly dividing the Word' by distinguishing principle from form.

1. What does the particular point of law tell us about love?
2. What does the particular point of law tell us about righteousness?
3. What difference does the Cross make?
3. What does the New Testament teach about it?

Those are the questions I ask about every point of Law.

Okay, the law against incest. It tells me of the sanctity of marriage. It tells me to honour close relatives. It tells me of the inappropriateness of marriage to certain relationships. The cross makes us want to do that even more. And in the New Testament, Paul wrote to the Corinthians to temporarily put someone out of the church for having his father's wife.

Conclusion: it's pretty clear - as New Testament believers, walking in love - we won't commit incest, we won't have sexual intercourse with our father's wife - just the same as under the Law.

Now, the law about not harvesting the corner of your field. What does it teach us about love? It teaches us to leave a little bit of work for poor people to do. About righteousness? It teaches us that it's okay to make a profit, but at the same time we should have a desire to give opportunity to the poor. What difference does the cross make? Jesus exemplified those morals on the cross! Therefore, we will want to be considerate of the poor, while not neglecting our own profit. And what does the New Testament teach? Well it never actually says it's wrong to harvest the corners of your fields. But it does say to consider the poor. It does say to give some employment to the poor.

Conclusion: it's okay to harvest the corners of your fields - we don't have to leave them - so long as we are finding other ways to be equally considerate to the poor.

We could follow this process with every point of Law in Leviticus 18-20.

Love fulfills each point (real point) of law - but the outward forms may or may not be the same.

I'm happy & willing to review Covenant relevancy ... but Torah still applies - internally, and externally.

I think you're actually saying the same thing as me, just using different terms.

You might come to slightly different conclusions though. But that's to be expected - even in Paul's day, believers had different levels of freedom from the observances of the Law. And Paul said to allow that, to a certain extent.

I cry for weak Christians that don't get fed properly. Let is be noted that it is the Torah-based Christians that go around focusing on the Father, Messiahship, Lordship, righteousness, feeding the sheep with quality food .... concepts that are sorely missing in most Sunday churches.


I know how you feel. But the church I got saved in had really good teaching which focused on all the things you admire - without actually keeping any of the outward forms of the Law.

Christ is the end of the Law (not just part of the Law, but the Law) for righteousness, to everyone who believes, said Paul. And yet He said, We fulfill the Law (not just part of the Law, but all of it).

The whole law is finished. We still fulfill the whole Law. How can this be? Because LOVE - the underlying principles of the Law - is the Law and the Prophets and it is Christ's New Commandment which is the same as the Old Commandment.

Wednesday 30 March 2011

Has the Injil (New Testament) Been Corrupted?

The Koran states that the New Testament (Injil) is a holy book given by God - but Muslims don't believe Jesus was crucified: the Koran claims the text of the New Testament was corrupted by Christians.

But if that's the case - when were the changes made, by whom, and what were the changes? The onus of proof is with those who are making such claims.

The Koran wasn't completed until about AD632, and it describes the God-given, not-yet corrupted Injil as a single book given by God. But at the time when the books of the New Testament were first compiled into a single book, there is historical, non-biblical evidence that the New Testament - right from the time of its first compilation into a single book - already mentioned Christ's crucifixion! The evidence is that the New Testament (Injil) has never been significantly different to how it is today!

Plus, Muslims take great pride in noting that Allah took great care to preserve his word, the Koran, from corruption. Why then would Allah have allowed his word, the Injil, to be corrupted?

Tuesday 29 March 2011

Problems

Someone tweeted:

"Some things are not a problem to solve but a tension to manage".

Monday 28 March 2011

The Imperfectability of Life

I remember once reading the term, "the imperfectability of life". In the book, a psychiatrist was pointing-out that success in life derives from accepting the imperfectibility of life as a reality of life - and from becoming skilled at working with the reality of that.

Applying that to ministry: I think accepting that circumstances will never be perfectly conducive to achieving ministry goals is the beginning of finding-out where we are meant to be, and what we can expect to be doing.

I see this in the ministry of Jesus. He had ideals in His heart for Jerusalem, if only she'd known the day of her visitation. Many times He wanted to gather her like a hen gathers her chicks, but they were not willing. But He didn't go look for another nation, yet. He knew it was His place and time to minister within the confines of an uncooperative nation. He accepted that the nation wasn't going to respond to His ministry as perfectly as He might have liked.

I also see it in Joshua's ministry. He knew he could take the promised land. But when God decided the nation should wait another 40 years because of the ten evil spies, he accepted it. Sure it upset him. But he didn't join those who armed themselves and went up to take the land despite God saying no. He accepted that he would have to have a less exciting role for the next 40 years. And he was rewarded for it - because 40 years later, he got to do what was in his heart, this time as leader rather than as second-in-charge.

A friend of mine told me he once said to the Lord, "Do you expect me to work with these Pastors!"

"Well you find me better ones, " the Lord replied.

And when you think about it, that's what the Lord has had to do with His Church for the past 2,000 years. Down through the Middle Ages and even today, the whole Church is not cooperating with Jesus as much as He might like. There are things that might have been possible, had Jesus encountered greater cooperation. But Jesus still works with the Church. He doesn't look for another Church. He hasn't withdrawn completely, waiting until He finds complete favour from the Church. Rather, He always does what He can within the imperfect circumstances of each church-group. He manifests His anointing to varying degrees, in many different denominations. He still shows up. He still does what He can.

And we are serving Him. We are not following our own agenda. So we can do the same. We can accept the varying levels of cooperation that we are likely to find in the church. And instead of withdrawing completely, waiting for perfect opportunities, we can minister to the highest level that the circumstances allow.

The imperfectibility of life. Understanding this removes the unrealistic expectations which cause frustration and inactivity. It makes our job-description clear. Working with it as a reality is a lifeskill which gurantees optimum success. And God has promised to bless the work of our hands!

Is the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis a Sign of the End?

Did Jesus specifically predict the Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami? Answer: probably not.

"...the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of HEAVEN [Greek: ουράνιο - ouránio] shall be shaken..." (Luke 21:25,26).

Some Bible-teachers are pointing-out that the Greek word which means "heaven" (ουράνιο - pronounced ouránio) is the same word used in Greek for uranium. Therefore it is claimed the real meaning of the above Scripture is that in the end-times a nuclear powerplant will meltdown as a result of a tsunami (the sea and waves roaring); and it is claimed this was specifically fulfilled at Fukushima in March 2011, and therefore ours must be the final generation that shall see the return of the Lord.

1. The Greek word used for "heavens" in the above Scripture is ουράνιο - pronounced ouránio.

2. The same Greek word pronounced ouránio is indeed the word for "uranium". Ouránio is the Greek form of the English word uranium (first published in English in 1797) - an Anglicized form of the Latin word which derived from a Greek word.

3. The same Greek word is also the name in Greek for the planet Uranus.

4. So in modern times the same Greek word now has three or four meanings: "heaven" or "heavens"; "uranium" and "uranus". Therefore, when interpreting the above Scripture, we need to choose between one of those meanings, and state why it should be chosen over the others.

5. If someone is going to base an end-times doctrine on their choice of "uranium" as the intended meaning of the Greek word in the above Scripture instead of its other meanings, then they also ought to state why they know "heaven" or "uranus" were not the intended meanings.

6. When Jesus spoke that Greek word, the word meant "heaven" or "heavens" - it didn't mean uranium or Uranus. "Heavens" is the meaning the apostles would have understood by the word, at the time they wrote it.

7. A literary rule of interpretation is that the obvious meaning of a word is always to be taken, especially if it fits the context nicely - unless something written in the text itself instructs us not to take the obvious meaning.

8. Therefore it is most likely that Jesus and the apostles intended the word ουράνιο - pronounced ouránio, to mean "heavens" not uranium or Uranus.

9. But even if it can be proven that the intended meaning is "uranium" - it still needs to be proven why the recent Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami fulfills it. Why not some other future nuclear crisis? or why not the Chernobyl nuclear crisis? why specifically Fukushima? Admittedly, the Chernobyl crisis wasn't caused by a tsunami (the sea and waves roaring) - but some future crisis might!

10. But even if there will never be another nuclear crisis caused by a tsunami, we still can't prove that the Fukushima crisis fulfills this Scripture specifically, because the above Scripture doesn't explicitly state that the powers of the heavens (or, nuclear powerplant) shall be shaken by a tsunami - it lists the two phenomena without stating that there shall be cause and effect between the two.

11. But even if the above Scripture did intend to mean that there shall be cause and effect between a tsunami and a nuclear crisis, the Fukushima crisis loses its status as a sign of the end - unless the crisis is ongoing. If the crisis comes to and end, and time continues to march on, then it wasn't the specific crisis referred to in this Scripture.

12. Therefore it doesn't appear to have been proven that the Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami uniquely fulfills the above Scripture, or that the crisis indicates ours must be the final generation before Jesus returns.

13. Nuclear crises may be part of the many signs of the end - but Jesus probably didn't intend to refer specifically to nuclear crises - He probably intended the meaning "heavens".

14. So, the Fukushima crisis probably isn't a certain indication that ours must be the final generation that shall see the return of the Lord.

15. Nevertheless, it is probably valid to include the Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami among other signs of the times which have existed in every generation since the early church.

16. Jesus can return at any time - if the Father wills. He is coming soon!

Sunday 20 March 2011

Soul-Winning Script (Japanese)

イエスは日本を愛しています!

あなたは、神様があなたを愛していることと、あなたの人生のために素晴らしい計画を用意されているということを、聞いた事がありますか?あなたにお 伺いしたいと思いますが 、もし、あなたが今突然死んで...しまったとしたら、間違いなくあなたは天国に行くことができると思いますか?

聖書には次のように書いてあります。「全ての人は罪人である。」また「罪から来る報酬は死である。しかし、神の下さる贈り物は、主イエス・キリストにある永 遠の命です。」と書かれています。また、「誰でも主の名前を呼ぶ者は救われる。」とも書かれています。あなたもこの「誰でも」のうちの一人ですね。

あなたのために、短い祈りをさせてください。主よ、聖霊様の力で、祝福してください。もしまだイエス・キリストを主として、救い主として受け入れていないのなら、今そうされることをお祈りいたします。神様の用意された贈り物を受け取られるのなら、次の事を私の後に、心からおっしゃってください。

愛する主であるイエス様、私の心の内においでください。私の罪を許してください。私を自由にしてください。私を癒してください。イエス様、私のために死なれて、死からよみがえられたことに、心から感謝します。私は今日、あなたを主として、救い主として、受け入れます。 そして 、永遠の命を受け取ります。神様、イエス・キリストの事を、周りの人に伝えるために情熱を与えてください。私は救われました。私は許されました。私は癒されました。聖霊様とあなたの愛の力で、溢れるほどに満たしてください。

イエス・キリストの福音の ミニストリーとして、そしてイエスの名前によって、私は今日あなたに、あなたの全ての罪が許されたことをお伝えします 。神様はあなたを本当に愛して、祝福してくださいますよ。 もしよろしければ 、お名前、電話番号やメールアドレスを送ってください。神様は本当にあなたを愛しています。

www.japanese-church.com

Parable of the Cake's Ingredients

How much of the Law should believers observe?

Answer: none of it and yet all of it.

Illustration:

A mother tells her mistress that she wants the children to have proper nutrition. She desires that they lack nothing.

So the mistress writes a note with instructs for her mistress's children:

1. Your mother says you need carbohydrates. So I want you to go out and grow some wheat. After it grows and is harvested, winnow it into flour.
2. At the same time, your mother says you need protein. So I want you to begin rearing some chickens, and when they grow into hens, collect some eggs.
3. I also want you to collect some salt, sugar, milk and butter from our cows - oh, and get some cinnamon as well. It's all good for you!

For days, week and months, her children labour to gather all those things - but it isn't easy, because of their weakness.

One day the mistress scolds their children, "You haven't collected enough carbs! You haven't collected enough proteins! carbs? Have you eaten everything I told you to eat! " They weren't capable enough to gather all those ingredients. It wasn't working.

But one day, her beloved son came along, just in the nick of time. He was stronger, and he was able to collect everything. He got wheat, eggs, sugar, milk, butter, even cinnamon - he missed nothing out. Then he mixed all the ingredients into a delicious cake. Then he freely gave pieces of the cake to all his weaker brothers and sisters. They ate and enjoyed it and were nourished.

Then the mother came along and asked the children, "Have you eaten everything you need to eat?"

Yes! By eating the son's cake, the son's free gift - they also ate everything the mistress had instructed, even without working for it. Because all of the ingredients that were written in the mistress's list went into the son's cake. The cake was the fulfilling of the ingredients!

Christ fulfilled the Law. By being in Christ and having Christ in us, we therefore fulfill all of the Law too.

We don't have to think about which ingredients of the Law we must put into our lives and which ones we are permitted to leave out. No. We just have to eat the cake (partake of Christ), because He (the cake) had ALL THE INGREDIENTS (of God's Law) in Him. Hallelujah!

And there will always be a practical overflow of that into all aspects of our lives, as we walk in the Spirit.

By love - by the Spirit - we fulfill the true meaning foreshadowed by the Law.

Keeping Which Parts of the Law?

It's important that the church doesn't try to build from the fourth floor. The rock on which the church is built, is Christ; and the foundation on which it is built is the apostles and prophets (Moses and the Law being one of the prophets). The Old Testament isn't to be regarded as being of no benefit.

But the Word needs to be rightly divided. The question is, How to do that. What part of the Law should still be observed, if any.

One popular way of dividing the Word is to pick parts of the Law which must be observed, and parts which don't need to be observed.

I would like to tell you how I divide the Word.

Paul said that anyone who seeks to keep the Law, must keep all of it - otherwise, he's not really keeping the Law at all.

He also taught that believers shouldn't allow anyone to judge them for their non-observance of the Law.

The same question existed in the early Church among the Apostles and elders. When they gathered together to address this question, their verdict was that they need not trouble the Gentiles by expecting them to keep any part of the Law at all. The only thing they decided was that Gentiles should abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication - but they didn't actually quote any part of the Law in saying that.

But that's not the end of the story. Paul also said that believers fulfill the Law. He appealed to the Law for ethical support for many of the commands he gave believers. He also said that when believers produce the fruit of the Spirit, they will behave in such a way that no point of Law can condemn them.

What does this mean? In what way do believers fulfill ALL of the Law?

Christ fulfilled all of it physically, ethically and beyond that - spiritually, on the cross. And we are in Him. The righteousness credited to Jesus for having fulfilled the Law is now accredited to us, because we are in Him.

And there is an overflow of that, into every area of our life: ethical, domestic, religious, spiritual, civil, economic.

Therefore, by walking in love, we fulfill all of the ethics and all of the true spiritual meaning that was portrayed by ALL of the Law.

And therefore we don't need to divide the Law up into ceremonial, civil and moral, and ritually keep part of it. Rather, we keep ALL of it, ethically and spirituall and in true reality, in Christ.

That, I believe, is what Paul taught. However, Paul also understood that many young believers would struggle to have such a high level of confidence. Many of them would still feel duty-bound by their conscience to abstain from certain foods and to observe special days.

And Paul tells us how the church should respond to this. He said that although it isn't actually necessary to observe such things, we should make allowances for this difference in the church. We should concede that both groups are acting with personal integrity. And we shouldn't condemn one another for it.

Meanwhile, he kept trying to teach people, helping them to become as free as possible.

And like I said, Paul repeatedly drew principles out of the Law.

This view doesn't mean we are failing to build upon the foundation of the first five books of the Bible. Rather, it means we are building on the foundation of the first five books in the exact way which the Father truly intended.

Freewill and Predestination

Since God ordained that man should have freewill, then whatever man chooses to do, it can be said in a sense that God is the doer of it, without meaning that God necessarily controls each person's choices.

Illustration:

Queen Victoria on July 9, 1900 gave Royal Assent to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created and give legislative powers to the Australian federal government).

But the Act did not come into force until January 1, 1901.

Thereafter the Australian federal parliament began passing its own Bills.

But it can be said that whatever Bills the Australian government chose to pass were in a sense passed by the monarch Herself (seeing She had given Royal Assent in the first place that an Australian federal Parliament should be created and that it should be empowered to enact its own legislation).

But that doesn't mean the Queen literally is the doer of everything enacted by the Australian parliament. She hasn't decided on a single Bill. Her only sovereign decision was that parliament should henceforth make its own decisions - even when parliament might sometimes make decisions that happen to be against Her personal preferences!

Similarly, God's sovereign choice (like the Queen's) was that man should have freewill and that there would be consequences for different choices.

Therefore it can be said that God foreordained people to various consequences - not because freewill isn't really freewill, but simply because He foreordained freewill and consequences.

Soul-Winning Script (Cebuano)

May nakasugilon na ba kanimo nga ang Dios nahigugma kanimo ug aduna Siyay nindot nga plano sa imong kinabuhi?

Ania koy mubo apan mahinungdanon kaayo nga pangutana kanimo. Kon moabut kanimo ang kamatayon karon gayud dayon, nahibawo ka ba sa wala gayuy landong sa pagduhaduha nga langit ang imong padulngan?

Sa makadiyot lang kaayo, sultihan ko ikaw kon unsay Pulong sa Balaang Kasulatan. Ang Bibliya nag-ingon:

“...ang tanan nakasala ug nawad-an sa himaya sa Dios”; ug

“...ang bayad sa sala, kamatayon, apan ang gasa sa Dios kinabuhi nga walay katapusan, pinaagi kang Christo Jesus nga Ginoo".

Ang Balaang Kasulatan usab nag-ingon:

“...kong kinsa kadtong motawag sa ngalan sa Dios mamaluwas”.

Ug ikaw usa sa sa “si kinsa” dili ba? Usa gayud ikaw, ug kitang tanan!

Mag ampo ako ug hamubo nga pag ampo alang kanimo:

Ginoo, panalangini kining akong higala ug ang iyang panimalay sa hataas ug himsug nga kinabuhi. Ginoong Jesus, himoa nga tinuod ikaw sa iyang kinabuhi nga malihok sa iyang kasisngkasing. Kon ugaling wala pa man siya makadawat kanimo sa iyang kinabuhi, mag ampo ako nga himoon niya kini karon.

Higala, kon gusto nimong madawat kining maong gasa karon, sabat kanako sa pag-ampo nga gikan gayud sa imong kasingkasing ug ibungat kining gikan sa imong baba.

Mahal kong Ginoong Jesus, sulod sa akong kasingkasing karon. Ug pasayloa ako sa akong mga sala, hugasi ako, linisi ako. Himo-a akong gawasnon. Ginoong Jesus, salamat nga nagpakamatay ka tungod kanako. Mituo ako nga nabanhaw ka gikan sa mga minatay ug nga mobalik ka pag-usab alang kanako. Pun-a ako sa imong Balaang Spiritu. Hatagi ako ug kahingawa sa mga wala nay paglaum, ang kagutom sa mga butang nga gikan Kanimo ug balaan nga magwali sa Imong Pulong. Luwas na ako, natawo na ako pag-usab. Ug pinasaylo na ako, padulong gayud ako sa langit tungod kay naa akoy Jesus sa akong kasingkasing.

Ingon nga minister sa Pulong ni Ginoong Jesus, tug-anan ko ikaw karon, ang imong mga sala gipasaylo na. Hinumdomi gayud kanunay sa pagdangop sa Dios ug dili magpahilayo Kaniya, tungod kay gihigugma ka Niya Ug daku ang Iyang plano sa imong kinabuhi.

(Translation: Pastor Jonas Macalaguing)

Saturday 19 March 2011

Soul-Winning Script (Tagalog)

May nakapagsabi na ba sa iyong minamahal ka ng Diyos at mayroon syang napakabuting plano sa buhay mo?

Mayroon akong kapiraso ngunit mahalagang tanong sa iyo. Kung sa mga sandaling ito ay bawian ka ng buhay, masasabi mo bang sa langit ang iyong tungo ng may kasiguraduhan?

Kung maaari, nais kong ibahagi sa iyo ang sinasabi ng banal na bibliya. Ayon rito:

"...ang lahat ay nagkasala at walang sinuman ang nakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Diyos"; at

"...ang kabayaran ng kasalanan ay kamatayan, subalit ang kaloob ng Diyos ay buhay na walang hanggan sa pamamagitan ni Hesu-Kristo na ating Panginoon".

Ayon pa sa Bibliya:

"...sinuman ang tumawag sa pangalan ng Panginoon ang siyang maliligtas."

At ikaw ay bahagi ng "sinuman" hindi ba? Lahat naman tayo ay "sinuman"!

Kung nais mong tanggapin ang kaloob na binibigay sa iyo ng Diyos ngayon, banggitin mo ng malakas ang panalanging ito ng iyong buong puso:

Panginoong Hesus, pumasok ka sa aking puso. Patawarin mo po ako sa aking mga kasalanan. Hugasan mo po ako at linisin. Bigyan nyo po ako ng kalayaan. Hesus, salamat po dahil kayo ay namatay para sa akin. Naniniwala po ako na kayo'y nabuhay muli at muling magbabalik para sa akin. Puspusin mo po ako ng Banal na Espiritu. Bigyan nyo po ako ng pagkalinga sa mga nawawala, sa mga taong nauuhaw sa Diyos, at bigyan nyo po ako ng katapangan na maipamahagi ang mabuting balita ni Hesu-Kristo. Ako ngayon ay ligtas; ako'y pinanganak nang muli, ako'y pinatawad na at ang aking landas ay patungong langit sapagkat si Hesus ay nasa akin ng puso.

Bilang lingkod ng mabuting balita ni Hesu-Kristo, malugod kong sinasabi sa iyo ngayon na ikaw ay pinatawad na. Nawa'y palagi mong tatandaan na lumapit sa Panginoon sa lahat ng oras sapagkat minamahal ka Nya at mayroon syang napakagandang plano sa buhay mo.

(Translation: Diana David)

In Times Like These

J. Johns wrote:

"In times like this these, remember there have always been times like these."

Repentance as a Gift Not as a Threat

Reinhard Bonnke wrote:

"Repentance should not be preached as a threat but as a gift."

Jesus the Burden Bearer

REINHARD BONNKE wrote:

"We do not become Christians by shouldering a load of extra demands. Jesus is the burden bearer not the burden giver."

Divinity of Jesus

Reinhard Bonnke wrote:

"Jesus did not found a religion, a way to God. He is 'the way, the truth and the life'; no one and nothing else is."

If Jesus wasn't divine, He would have said, "I am providing the way to God". But instead He said, "I AM the way..."

Messiah, The True Israel

The following was written by Neil Robson:

"To expand Israel it first had to be narrowed down to one person. The scriptures teach that Jesus is the ultimate Israel. In Matthew 2:15 the Holy Spirit quotes a verse referring to national Israel "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1) and says Jesus fulfills this prophecy! We are being told Jesus is the true faithful Israel of God. He alone is worthy of the covenant blessings. Messiah is the supreme seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16). Paul explicitly says: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say `and to his seeds', meaning many people, but `and to his seed' meaning one person, who is Messiah". It is only through faith in Jesus that we come into the fullness of the promise to Abraham. This is to the Jew first, and also as for Gentiles."

Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel

Here is a link to interesting articles about Romans 11 and the future of ethnic Israel:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200012/ai_n8926780/?tag=content%3Bcol1

More on Dispensationalism

Here is a link to interesting articles about dispensationalism:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=9|21|649

A History of Dispensationalism in America

The following was written by Ernest C Reisinger:


"In our last study we considered the vital relationship of Dispensationalism to the Lordship controversy. Dispensationalism is the theological mother of non-Lordship teaching.

In this study I wish to give a very brief history of dispensationalism in the U.S.A. This is not meant to be an exhaustive study. It is just a little parenthesis in our studies on the Lordship controversy.

I am taking this little diversion because many, if no, most, of those carrying Scofield Bibles, who sit under Dispensational teachers, know very little about the system and its history. They do not know how the Dispensational theological system differs from the Reformational, historical theology in general, and covenant, Reformed Theology in particular. This is true not only of those in the pews but also, in many instances, the preachers themselves have never seriously compared Dispensationalism with covenant theology as it is most clearly expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism. Covenant Theology is the archrival of Dispensationalism.

It is my conviction that many who are presently disposed toward Dispensationalism would not be victims of the system if they were better acquainted and informed about the system and its history-its theological roots and the doctrinal errors it has spawned.

Dispensationalism has its roots in the Plymouth Brethren movement which began in the United Kingdom. Writers do not all agree as to the time and place of the Brethren's origin. The first "breaking of bread service" that I can find a record of was in 1827 in Dublin. The preponderance of the information would show that John Nelson Darby was in a real sense a key person and early teacher of the Brethren movement. Other names are very early identified with the movement; such as A.N. Groves; B.W. Newton; W.H. Dorman; E. Cronin; and J.G. Bullett. All of these men were early leaders in places like Dublin, Plymouth and Bristol. It would be generally agreed that John Nelson Darby was the energizing and guiding spirit in its beginning. These men had many differences and divisions among themselves in the early days and ever after. This is not a critique of the Plymouth Brethren movement in the U.K. I mention it to show approximately when and where the Dispensational roots first appeared in history.

There are some Dispensationalists who do not agree with this assessment of their historical beginning. Their arguments, however, will not survive historical examination. Dispensationalism is a development of the Plymouth Brethren movement.

Dispensationalism is a theological system which developed from a twisted, theological interpretation of Scripture that dates from the late nineteenth century. Before that time it was not know as a theological system. The first record of Dispensationalism in the USA is 1864-65, when J.N. Darby twice visited the country. Through these two visits the 16th and Walnut Avenue Presbyterian Church in St. Louis (then pastored by Dr. James H. Brooks) became the principal center of Dispensationalism in America. How could it be!?! This is like trying to mix oil with water! A Presbyterian Church promoting Dispensationalism? Dr. Brooks became Darby's most prominent supporter and has been call the father of Dispensationalism in the U.S.

Dr. Brooks, the most influential exponent of Dispensationalism, propagated it by his own Bible studies with young men. His best known student was C.I. Scofield. Dr. Brooks also published many books and pamphlets (this should teach us the power of literature) as well as editing a magazine called The Truth. The chronology follows this order: Darby to Scofield; Scofield to Chafer; Chafer to Dallas Theological Seminary.

Before proceeding from Dr. Brooks it may be wise and helpful to call attention to conditions in the mainline denominations in the U.S. during this time. In the early twentieth century liberalism was beginning to rear its ugly head in these denominations. The sad condition of the churches had a profound effect of the success and inroads of Dispensationalism.

I will not mention the history in each denomination, but rather, use the Presbyterian Church which was more influenced by Dispensationalism than any other denomination.

Princeton Seminary, which was once the great stronghold of Biblical Christianity, was one of the first places where liberalism was exposed. One of the first open signs of this liberalism appeared in 1914 when J. Ross Stevenson became president of the Seminary. Dr. Stevenson was more interested in ecumenical goals than in the theology of the Westminster Standards.

In the General Assembly in 1923 the brewing storm came to a head. After this meeting a group of spiritual and theological giants followed J. Gresham Machen to found a new seminary. On September 25, 1929 Westminster Seminary, with fifty students and a choice faculty, was opened. There has never been a faculty like it since.

The faculty consisted of articulate, Reformed theologians and they were fighting for the fundamentals of the faith; namely, the inspiration of the Scriptures; the virgin birth of Christ; the bodily resurrection of Christ; the miracle of Christ; and the substitutionary atonement. Their fight was against liberalism, and this same battle was being fought in most, if not all, the mainline denominations. Those who rejected liberalism and held to the five fundamentals just mentioned were labeled "Fundamentalists." This fundamentalism must not be confused with the present day Dispensational fundamentalism.

Let me explain precisely what I mean. The five fundamentals mentioned are beliefs which are essential to historic Christianity. In this sense, every true Christian who holds these truths is a fundamentalist. The present day Dispensational fundamentalists, though they hold to the five essential truths, often attack many other important fundamental of the faith which Reformed people have always cherished and have shed their blood to maintain.

Scofield Dispensationalism brought a new kind of fundamentalism into many churches. This new dispensationalism in its unscriptural, unreformed, and uncalvinistic teaching came on the religious scene to fill a vacuum-a vacuum which existed because of liberalism. The churches had drifted away from the doctrinal roots expressed in the old confessions and creeds. Many of the best schools and seminaries had been taken over by liberals and modernists-beginning in the colleges and seminaries and spreading to the pulpits and the pews. Bible-believing Christians turned to those churches where the bible was believed and taught.

This vacuum which Liberalism created in the churches provided a prime opportunity for the establishment and spread of the new Dispensational teaching.

This resulted in the independent church movement, the independent Bible conference movement and the Bible school movement. Those who participated in them were almost all carrying Scofield Bibles and their leaders were predominantly Dispensational in their views.

The major training center for evangelical and Bible-believing churches became Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer was the first president. Keep in mind these were days when the crucial battle between modernism and historic Christianity was in progress.

In that desperate hour sincere, Bible-believing people turned to Dallas Seminary, the mecca of Dispensationalism, for teaching on God's Word.

Many Dispensational Bible schools and colleges were born during this period, and they all were brought forth unreformed.

The late Robert King Churchill, a respected Presbyterian minister, wrote a little paperback entitled, Lest We Forget. It consists of his reflections on his fifty year history in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Mr. Churchill confirms what I have said about Dispensationalism getting into the Presbyterian Church. He tells of his personal experience in two specific churches: First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma, Washington, where he was converted, baptized and called to the ministry, and another located in Seattle, Washington. He tells how, in these two great churches, the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible became more and more prominent in the preaching. Churchill said, "These notes and the interpretation of Scripture upon which they were based, were contrary to our Presbyterian and Reformed heritage."

He tells of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer delivering a series of lectures on the subject of "Grace" (the same material now appears in Chafer's book by the same title). Hear Mr. Churchill's own words:

But Chafer's treatment of the subject of grace never arrives at the right view of the law of God. According to Dr. Chafer, the law was a condition of salvation placed upon the people of God in the Old Testament during a special and limited time period-the Dispensation of Law. This condition, Chafer contended, no longer has application to the New Testament believer since we relate to God under a new dispensation, the Dispensation of Grace. Since, as he put it, "we are no longer under law, but under grace," Chafer argued that there is no necessary relationship between law and grace. Here is law without grace, and grace without law. Always and in every sense, law and grace are opposed to each other.

This teaching appears to be scriptural, but in reality it was the ancient error of Antinomianism (anti-law) which denies that the law has application to the Christian. Chafer defended this view by means of a radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures (p. 31).

Dispensationalism is also a frontal attack on Covenantal Theology and the doctrine of the unity of the covenant of grace, which have been held since the time of the Reformation.

How could Dispensationalism be welcomed and embraced in strong Presbyterian churches whose confession teaches Reformed, Calvinistic, Covenant Theology? Though there is not a simple answer one thing is certain: the churches which were infected with Dispensationalism were those which had ceased teaching in any vital way the doctrinal distinctives of their own confession.

All honest Dispensationalists would agree that the Dispensational system of theology has a different view of the grace of God, the law of God, the church of God, the interpretation of the Word of God and the salvation of God. That is, its teaching are different from tested, respected historic creeds and confessions.

Dispensationalism has a different view of living the Christian life-of sanctification and, more specifically, how justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together in the application of God's salvation.

This is a Southern Baptist journal, therefore, I must say something about Dispensationalism in Southern Baptist churches. Historically, the Southern Baptist churches were not Dispensational in theology. None of our leading seminaries or colleges ever taught Dispensationalism and to the present day they do not teach Dispensationalism.

I believe I am safe in saying that Dr. Wally Amos Criswell has been the most influential and articulate Southern Baptist Dispensationalists. Dr. Criswell is one of the great, esteemed and respected leaders of our denomination and every Southern Baptist is deeply indebted to him as a defender of the Bible and conservative Christianity. Where and how this great leader got his Dispensationalism I do not know. I do know that he did not get it at Baylor in his college days. He did not get it at Southern in his seminary days, and he did not get it from his great predecessor, George W. Truett, who pastored the First Baptist Church in Dallas, for 47 years before Dr. Criswell. George W. Truett was a postmillennialist.

There are other good men in the Southern Baptist Convention who have Dispensational views, but they did not get these views in our schools or seminaries. They did not get them from our Baptist fathers or from our Baptist historical roots.

We cannot overlook the accomplishments of Dispensationalism. It has given rise to Bible colleges and independent churches all over the land. It has spawned numerous independent missions, independent preachers and missionaries.

If we apply the pragmatic test and ask the question, "Does it work?" The answer is, "yes."

If we apply the same test and ask the same question to:

Jehovah's Witnesses, the answer would be yes.

The Mormons, the answer would be yes, it works.

The Roman Catholic Church-yes, it works.

The Charismatic movement-yes, it works.

They all have many converts and followers. They build schools, churches and have missionaries and great accomplishments-but, there is another, more important question that needs to be asked. Is it true, is it Biblical? This question will bring a different answer.

The issue before us is not a few minor differences or disagreements between those who hold basically the same position. It is not just a difference in eschatology. It is the whole system of theology that touches every major doctrine of Christianity. What is at stake is the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and the sinner's assurance that he is living according to God's plan for history.

There are many being rescued from the errors of Dispensationalism and I pray that God will use these studies to awaken many more to ask the right question.

In our next study we will return to the Lordship controversy."

Source

Saturday 12 March 2011

Soul-Winning Script

Has anyone ever told you that God loves you and that He has a wonderful plan for your life?

I have a real quick, but important question to ask you. If you were to die this very second, do you know for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you would go to Heaven?

Let me quickly share with you what the Holy Bible says. It says:

"...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and

"...the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord".

The Bible also says:

"...whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

And you're a "whosoever" aren't you? Of course you are; all of us are.

If you would like to receive the gift that God has for you today, say this prayer with your heart and lips out loud.

Dear Lord Jesus, come into my heart. Forgive me of my sin. Wash me and cleanse me. Set me free. Jesus, thank You that You died for me. I believe that You are risen from the dead and that You're coming back again for me. Fill me with the Holy Spirit. Give me a passion for the lost, a hunger for the things of God and a holy boldness to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm saved; I'm born again, I'm forgiven and I'm on my way to Heaven because I have Jesus in my heart.

As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I tell you today that all of your sins are forgiven. Always remember to run to God and not from God because He loves you and has a great plan for your life.

Thursday 10 March 2011

Keeping Predestination in Context

Paul's ELECTION statements were given in answer to a question. The question was about the ramifications for Israel - and for God's ancient promises to Israel - if Paul's message of salvation of the Gentiles through faith (Romans 1-8), be true.

Now, if Paul's ELECTION statements were written with the intention of introducing a new topic - the topic raised and debated many centuries later by Calvin and Armenius - how could that possibly answer the question in poin? It wouldn't answer it at all. It would only raise more questions!

It would make about as much sense as answering the question about which is better - Fords or Holdens - with a statement about why helium-filled balloons rise. No relevance at all.

Paul's statements about ELECTION weren't intended as the introduction of a whole new thought or topic. Rather, it was Paul's answer to the dilemma of Israel and of God's ancient promises to Israel.

The Jews had predominantly failed to get saved, because they sought righteousness through the Law instead of through faith in Jesus. And the offer was also offered to Gentiles. It confused some early believers.

So Paul explained that it was always God's prerogative to save on His own basis - the basis of faith. The scheme was FOREKNOWN by God. He ELECTED that it should be this way. This scheme originated with God's MERCY, not with any man's own assertions about how it should be (man's will or running). God had already PREDESTINED that believers (regardless of nationality) should be destined for GLORY!

I could be wrong. But I think that's what Romans 9-11 mean.

Ponderings About Predestination

Some thoughts about Predestination:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

I think it means that God granted that faith should be the door into the saving grace of God.

"...Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18).

I think it means that God granted that repentance should result in eternal life, for Gentiles also.

"...they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27).


I think it means that God offered the same arrangement to Gentiles that He had offered to Jews: namely, the opportunity to be saved through faith.

But just because He was granting the opportunity to be saved through faith and repentance, did not mean that everyone was willing to respond to what was on offer.

And it doesn't mean God controlled people either to respond or refuse. I don't think it is possible to derive any such meaning from the text.

Rather, we read in the Scriptures that Jesus commanded people to have faith. He commended them for their faith. He upraided them for their unbelief. He also commanded people to repent. He upraided them for not repenting.

If faith and repentance could be given in the Calvinistic sort of way, why didn't Jesus just give people faith, instead of commanding people to have it? Why didn't He, instead of upraiding those who didn't repent, just give them repentance? And why did He commend those who did, as though they hadn't received it freely?

God gave everyone - Jews and Gentiles - the opportunity to be saved through faith and repentance. But He didn't control whether or not an individual believed and repented. It just means the offer was there - to everyone - a scheme that originated in God's mercy, not man's assertions about how it should be.

As it happened, most Jews stumbled, because they sought it through the Law instead of through Jesus, and the Church emerged instead as the focus of God's dealings with mankind. God's focus centred around believers - either Jew or Gentile - rather than around natural Israel.

But this outcome, Paul explained in Romans 9-11, had long been FOREKNOWN by God. God had always ELECTED that He would save on the basis of faith rather than on the basis of nationality.

Some were confused by this, but Paul futher explains that it was always God's prerogative to offer salvation on His own terms regardless of whose WILL opposed it and regardless of anyone's RUNNING and self-efforts in the Law.

Therefore believers could be assured of their eternal destiny - because God had already planned it that believers (regardless of what nationality they were from) should be destined to glory.

I think that's what Paul was saying. It was all about authenticating his message that salvation is available to the Gentiles through faith. It fits the design of his argument in Romans.

He wasn't discussing the same question that Calvin and Armenius argued over. That topic would be like a baseball suddenly being thrown onto a Grid-Iron field, in midplay! It just wouldn't fit the context.

But I don't know. Just wondering!

Wednesday 9 March 2011

Julia Gillard's Speech to Joint US Congress



Mr Speaker.

Mr President Pro Tempore.

Distinguished Members of the Senate and the House.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Distinguished Guests.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am the fourth Australian Prime Minister to address you here assembled.

Like them, I take your invitation as a great honour. Like them, I accept it on behalf of Australia.

Since 1950, Australian Prime Ministers Robert Menzies, Bob Hawke and John Howard have come here.

Speaking for all the Australian people through you to all the people of the United States they each came with a simple message.

A message which has been true in war and peace, in hardship and prosperity, in the Cold War and in the new world.

A message I repeat today.

Distinguished Members of the Senate and the House ...

You have a true friend down under.

For my parents' generation, the defining image of America was the landing at Normandy.

Your "boys of Point-du-Hoc"... risking everything to help free the world.

For my own generation, the defining image of America was the landing on the moon.

My classmates and I were sent home from school to watch the great moment on television.

I'll always remember thinking that day: Americans can do anything.

Americans helped free the world of my parents' generation.

Americans inspired the world of my own youth.

I stand here and I see the same brave and free people today. I believe you can do anything still.

There is a reason the world always looks to America.

Your great dream – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – inspires us all.

Those of you who have spent time with Australians know that we are not given to overstatement.

By nature we are laconic speakers and by conviction we are realistic thinkers.

In both our countries, real mates talk straight.

We mean what we say.

You have an ally in Australia.

An ally for war and peace.

An ally for hardship and prosperity.

An ally for the sixty years past and Australia is an ally for all the years to come.

Geography and history alone could never explain the strength of the commitment between us.

Rather, our values are shared and our people are friends.

This is the heart of our alliance.

This is why in our darkest days we have been glad to see each other's face and hear each other's voice.

Australia's darkest days in the last century followed the fall of Singapore in 1942.

And you were with us.

Under attack in the Pacific, we fought together. Side by side, step by bloody step.

And while it was Australian soldiers at Milne Bay who gave the Allies our first victory on land in the Pacific War, it was American sailors at the Battle of the Coral Sea who destroyed the fear of an invasion of Australia.

Distinguished Members of the Senate and the House Australia does not forget.

The ultimate expression of our alliance, the ANZUS Treaty, was not signed until 1951.

But it was anticipated a decade earlier.

In the judgements – the clear, frank and accurate judgements – of an Australian Prime Minister.

And in the resolve – the extraordinary, immovable resolve – of an American President.

In the decades since, we have stuck together. In every major conflict. From Korea and Vietnam to the conflicts in the Gulf.

Your darkest days since Pearl Harbour were ten years ago in Washington and New York.

And we were with you.

My predecessor John Howard was quite literally with you and he came to this Capitol when you met on September 12 to show you that Australians would be with you again.

And after fifty years, under a new Prime Minister and a new President, the ANZUS Treaty was invoked.

Within Australia's democracy, John Howard and I had our differences. But he was and is an Australian patriot and an American friend, a man who was moved by what he saw here in that terrible September.

When John Howard addressed you in 2002 we were already with you in Afghanistan.

And we are there with you today.

I want you to know what I have told Australia's Parliament in Canberra - what I told General Petraeus in Kabul - what I told President Obama in the Oval Office this week.

Australia will stand firm with our ally the United States.

Our friends understand this.

Our enemies understand this too.

We must be very realistic about Afghanistan's future.

Australia firmly supports the international strategy led by President Obama and adopted at Lisbon last year.

Australia is doing our part – in Uruzgan province in particular and across the country as a whole.

The Government of Afghanistan must do its part too.

We know transition will take some years yet.

We must not transition out only to transition back in.

From my discussions with your country's leaders in Washington, my meetings with our generals in Afghanistan and my time with our troops, this is my conclusion:

I believe we have the right strategy in place, a resolute and courageous commander in General Petraeus, and the resources needed to deliver the strategy.

I am cautiously encouraged by what I have seen.

Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith is Australia's most recent Victoria Cross winner – our equivalent of your Medal of Honour.

Ben is a veteran of five tours of Afghanistan and first went there in 2006.

When we met recently, his words to me were compelling:

There are hard days ahead.

I flew to your country the day after attending the funeral of a young Australian who served in Afghanistan.

Sapper Jamie Larcombe was from my home state of South Australia, from a small community with the most perfectly Australian name, Kangaroo Island.

Jamie's life's ambition was to serve his country.

He was a long way from Kangaroo Island when he made the ultimate sacrifice.

We will remember.

I know very many young Americans have served their country and lost their lives in Afghanistan too.

As a friend we share your grief.

As an ally we share your resolve.

Afghanistan must never again be a safe haven for terrorism.

Just as our security alliance is one for war and peace, our economic partnership is one for hardship and prosperity.

In hard days, we work together.

Our societies share a deep understanding of the human importance of work.

We believe life is given direction and purpose by work.

Without work there is corrosive aimlessness. With the loss of work comes the loss of dignity.

This is why, in each of our countries, the great goal of all we do in the economy is the same to ensure that everyone who can work does work.

In turn, this is why each of our countries took early and strong action in the face of the greatest threat to the world's economy since the Great Depression.

And we did not just act locally or individually.

We worked together when hardship came.

New global realities and the emerging economic weight of countries like China, India and Brazil meant the vital forum for the global response was the leaders of the G20 nations.

My predecessor Kevin Rudd worked hard to ensure this was so.

The world needed a global response to the economic crisis and global leadership was vital.

Together, the G20 coordinated $5 trillion in fiscal stimulus for the global economy.

While there has been very real pain, that global response averted true economic disaster.

Economic stimulus has been crucial – to limit the worst effects of the downturn.

Economic reform is crucial now – to deliver the best hopes for a strong recovery.

Like you, I am a leader in a democracy.

I know reform is never easy.

But I know reform is right.

The global economic outlook remains fragile and uncertain.

Global economic imbalances persist and we must address them or risk future instability.

Your leadership in the G20 is still needed to ensure we make the reforms which will keep the global economy on the path to strong, sustained and balanced growth.

And that is the path to growth in America as well.

We worked hard with you during the global economic crisis to resist protectionist pressures. This only built on our decades working together to promote free trade in the world.

I know many of you worked hard to achieve the Australia-US Free Trade agreement.

Thank you.

Our FTA experience shows the benefits of free trade.

And we aim for even larger benefits from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a great economic opportunity for our two countries and seven of our regional partners.

And we have other opportunities to promote trade and jobs together as well.

I am looking forward to your country hosting the APEC Leaders' meeting later this year. We will work closely together there.

Australia is also working for an ambitious and balanced conclusion of the WTO Doha Round as soon as possible.

And we look forward to your Congress passing a 2012 Farm Bill that advances free trade rather than distorting it ... and that through free trade, creates jobs.

We know the equation is simple: trade equals jobs.

Our societies share a deep understanding of the human importance of work.

And our societies share a deep commitment to the value of education.

We understand education's transformative power.

We know education is the future for every child who learns.

We also know education is the future for our economies.

Our future growth relies on competitiveness and innovation, skills and productivity ... and these in turn rely on the education of our people.

Australia and America are partners in a globalised world, where open societies flourish and competitive economies thrive.

This is why I went to a school in Wakefield, Virginia with President Obama this week.

The President and I not only saw children learning.

We saw the future of your people and the future of your prosperity as well.

Australians are deeply grateful to your "Greatest Generation" for their mighty deeds.

This week I have seen a new generation of Americans .

I genuinely believe they can be greater still.

Achieving prosperity while sharing its benefits requires far-sighted educational reforms.

In the same way, achieving growth while caring for our climate requires far-sighted economic reforms.

Breaking the link between economic growth and emissions growth is a difficult challenge for our economies and we can only achieve it by working together.

Our cooperation in key international forums and in research and development is making an important contribution.

We must work together to achieve an historic transition to high technology, high skill, clean energy economies.

Shared values are the basis of our security alliance and shared values are the basis of our economic partnership as well.

Through hard work and education, we can deliver a strong economy and opportunity for all.

Americans are great optimists and Australians will always "have a go".

So, conceived in the Pacific War and born in the Cold War, adapted to the space age and invoked in the face of terror, our indispensable alliance is a friendship for the future.

It is this year's sixtieth anniversary of the signing of our Treaty that occasions your invitation to me today.

For that I am grateful. As I said to President Obama, it is an alliance sixty years young with so much future to share.

And this is a timely opportunity, not so much for reflection on our past, as for discussion of our future.

The bipolar world in which our Alliance was signed has long disappeared.

I am not sad about its passing.

Hundreds of millions of people have a better life today, democracy and human dignity have spread wide in the world in the last twenty years.

We have seen this from Eastern Europe to East Asia in recent years and we are seeing the hope of it in the Middle East now.

We understand that nothing is certain.

There is still much for the people of the Middle East to do and the governments of the world will be called on to help them do it.

Yet I believe what we are seeing is unchanging realities of human nature finding a new expression and in a new way.

For Australia's part, we will do what we can – and work with you – to support orderly transitions to democracy.

To foster human rights and religious freedom within the countries of the Middle East.

And to secure a lasting peace between them.

A peace where no nation threatens another, which is why we join you in condemning Iran's nuclear program.

A peace where Israel is secure, and where Palestinians have a state of their own, which is why we join you in calling on all parties to negotiate in good faith.

Our Alliance was signed sixty years ago in the Cold War and it lives in a new world today.

And momentous as the changes in the Middle East are, I believe it is in the Asia-Pacific where the global order is changing most.

We admire India's example as a true democracy.

We never forget Indonesia's transition to create the world's third largest democracy in the world's largest Islamic country.

And we applaud China's lifting some 500 million people out of poverty.

The centre of global strategic and economic weight is shifting to this region.

The rise of the Asia-Pacific will define our times.

Like you, our relationship with China is important and complex.

We encourage China to engage as a good global citizen and we are clear-eyed about where differences do lie.

My guiding principle is that prosperity can be shared.

We can create wealth together.

The global economy is not a zero-sum game.

There is no reason for Chinese prosperity to detract from prosperity in Australia, the

United States or anywhere in the world.

America has always understood this principle of the economy - that everyone can benefit when everyone competes.

And for sixty years your leadership in the Asia-Pacific has showed this.

Your commitment to free trade and investment fuelled the growth.

Your presence and network of alliances ensured the stability.

You were indispensable in the Cold War and you are indispensable in the new world too.

So your growing engagement with key countries in the region – like Japan, India, South Korea and Indonesia – is enormously welcome.

We will work closely with you to strengthen the fabric of these relationships and underpin regional stability.

Strengthening regional institutions so that the countries of the Asia-Pacific increasingly manage the frictions of a growing and changing Asia-Pacific.

This is why your nation's decision to join the East Asia Summit is such good news.

The Summit brings the leaders of the region's major powers together and has a mandate to deal with the whole range of economic, political and security issues our countries face.

Our relationship is evolving to meet these new challenges: from defence and intelligence to diplomacy and trade.

Australia in the south, with South Korea and Japan to the north, form real Asia-Pacific partnerships with the United States.

Anchors of regional stability.

An alliance which was strong in the Cold War ... an alliance which is strong in the new world.

In both our countries, true friends stick together.

Our nations do this, and our people do this as well.

Nothing better tells this truth than the story of two fire fighters.

Many Australians and Americans worked together in the late 1990s to be ready to protect the 2000 Sydney Olympics from possible terrorist attack.

One group of Australians spent two months in New York training and working, including a long time with New York's Fire Department Rescue 1.

They worked hard together and became more than colleagues - they became mates.

So when it was time to go home the Australian commander gave Rescue 1's chief his Australian Army "slouch hat" .and the chief presented the Australians with a battle scarred fire helmet.

Dated December 1998 and signed by members of the Rescue 1 crew, including Kevin Dowdell

Three years later, Kevin Dowdell was one of the hundreds of New York firefighters killed when the towers came down.

Kevin led his men in. His remains were never found.

But that helmet was found ... in Australia.

And Aussie firefighter Rob Frey found Kevin's sons.

James Dowdell is one of New York's bravest, a firefighter like his father before him.

Patrick Dowdell is wearing his country's uniform in Afghanistan.

Rob came to America to give James the helmet his father signed.

A precious possession. A last link to a father lost.

And I give you their story. A precious possession too.

These two men are here today.Rob, James - good on you.

We are so proud of what you represent, your story says it all about the friendship between Australia and the United States.

Together in the hardest of times. Friends for the future.

When our alliance was signed sixty years ago, the challenges of the space age were still to come.

The challenges of terrorism were still to come.

For sixty years, leaders from Australia and the United States have looked inside themselves and found the courage to face those challenges.

And after sixty years, we do the same today.

To protect our peoples.

To share our prosperity.

To safeguard our future.

For ours is a friendship for the future.

It has been from its founding and remains so today.

You have a friend in Australia.

And you have an ally.

And we know what that means.

In both our countries, true friends stick together ... in both our countries, real mates talk straight.

So as a friend I urge you only this: be worthy to your own best traditions.

Be bold.

In 1942, John Curtin – my predecessor, my country's great wartime leader – looked to America. I still do.

This year you have marked the centenary of President Reagan's birth.

He remains a great symbol of American optimism.

The only greater symbol of American optimism is America itself.

The eyes of the world are still upon you.

Your city on a hill cannot be hidden.

Your brave and free people have made you the masters of recovery and reinvention.

As I stand in this cradle of democracy I see a nation that has changed the world and known remarkable days.

I firmly believe you are the same people who amazed me when I was a small girl by landing on the moon.

On that great day I believed Americans could do anything.

I believe that still.

You can do anything today.

It is not the same country I first went to five years ago. We are making a difference.

Tuesday 8 March 2011

Saving Faith as a Gift

Yes, faith in Jesus is a gift. That meant, faith wasn't limited by the nationality they were born with nor was it a reward for trying to keep the Law.

Rather, faith was something that was available for all, irrespective of nationality or works (of the Law). The nature of faith is that it is a gift.

Faith is not a gift if it was something one could naturally be born with.

Faith is not a gift if one could work in order to be rewarded with it under Moses' Law.

Faith is called a gift because it is something that is available to all through the preaching of the Gospel without respect of persons.

Faith comes by hearing the Gospel.

If our Gospel be hid, it is hid from those who are lost.

Therefore faith is available to all who hear.

Jesus commended some people for their faith. He also upraided others for the absence of faith.

God opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. But not all enter through the door. And those who do, cannot boast about it, because the opportunity was made available as a gift, not because of their works (of the Law) or nationality.

So the above Scripture is only saying that the opportunity to have been saved through faith was there as a GIFT - not as a reward for keeping the Law or as the natural result of being Jewish.

But the verse says nothing about God being selective about whom He opens the opportunity to enter His grave via the way of faith.

The verse merely removes any preclusions to anyone entering via the way of faith. Because by nature faith is a gift.

Nothing stands in the way - being a Gentile doesn't stand in the way - the Law no longer stands in the way. The vehicle of faith is now available to all. Therefore avail youself of the gifted opportunity!

And having availed yourself of it, you can't boast. All you can do is give thanks.

That's all the verse is saying.

God's Foreknowledge and Salvation

"...All whom the Father has given me..."

Whom has the Father give to Jesus? All those who were born Jews? Those who believe!

"...whom He did foreknow..."

Whom did God foreknow and predestinate? All the natural-born descendants of Abraham? Those who believe, even Gentiles!

In both contexts - Jesus' and Paul's - the point was not that God intervenes to include or preclude anyone's ability to believe.

Rather, the point was that it was God's original plan to save, not on the basis of Jewishness (or works, i,e., of the Law) but through believing on Jesus.

Both statements were made in response to the popular view in the first century that Jewishness was enough to save someone.

The point was that it was always God's plan that it is Jesus that saves - through faith in Him - not Jewishness.

And this wasn't an afterthought. It didn't mean God's promises to Israel had failed. It was always God's plan - even since before the foundation of the world - to save on this basis.

The Church - comprising both Jewish and Gentile BELIEVERS - was indeed something foreknown and predestined by God.

That's the background against which the above two verses were made. Both Jesus and Paul were answering the issue that was pertinent at the time - the question of the role of Jewisness or of faith in salvation.

Jesus and Paul weren't answering the issue which Calvin and Armenius argued over centuries later. If you want to find an answer to their question, you'll have to look elsewhere than in the above two verses, because the above two verses don't and weren't intended to answer to that question.

Whosoever Will

Is there a contradiction between the verse "so then it is not of him who willeth nor of him that runneth" and the verse "whosoever will may come"?

No - because they are not talking about the same thing.

The first verse is about how God's scheme to save by faith removed from the equation the Jews' will and striving under the Law.

The second verse is an invitation to one and to all to come and participate in that wonderful scheme.

The first is about God's right to offer salvation on His own terms - the term of faith.

The second is an invitation to individually partake in that salvation on God's terms.

God's plan (to save by faith) was independant of the will of the flesh - it was God's own plan that it should be that way. No Jew or Gentile dictated his own terms to God. The plan itself did not originate with man's will.

But an individual's decision to come and participate does involve his will. And that's not inconsistent with the statement in Romans.

Sunday 6 March 2011

 主なるイエスキリスト

神は、実に、そのひとり子をお与えになったほどに、世を愛された。それは御子を信じる者が、ひとりとして滅びることなく、永遠のいのちを持つためである。”
          ヨハネによる福音書3章16節
       主なるイエスキリスト

 それは私が14歳の時のことです。私は友人と一緒に校長室の前まで行き、そのドアをノックしました。
「はい、どうぞ。どんな悪さをしたんだね?どの先生に言われてここに来たんだい?」
 校長先生が尋ねます。
「校長先生、僕は悪いことをしてここに来たわけではありません。先生にお話があるんです」
 私は言いました。
「そうか。ではこちらに来なさい」
9年生(日本の学校では中学3年生に相当)にこのように訪ねて来られ、校長先生の口調にはいく分か面白がっているような様子が感じられました。
私は言いました。
「校長先生、僕はクリスチャンになって、人生が変えられたんです。ですから何よりもまず第一に、僕がクリスチャンになる前に迷惑をおかけした先生方全員に謝りたいと思います。そして次に、お昼休みに教室を一部屋、使うことを許可してほしいんです。そうすればそこで、ほかのみんなにイエス様のことを教えてあげるクリスチャン・ミーティングを始めることができますし、彼らにとっても人生が変えられるいいチャンスになります」

校長先生はしばらく考えてからこう言いました。
「それはだめだ。誰しも自分の宗教というものを持っているものだからね。もし私が、君の宗教のための集会を認めれば、保護者の中には快く思わない人もいるだろうし、それが分裂を招くきっかけにもなりかねない。それならばむしろ、学校には何の宗教もない方がいいだろう」
私は、校長先生が話を聞いてくれたことに礼を言い、握手をしてからその場を後にしました。 
私はクリスチャンの友人たちのところへ行き、校長先生の話を説明しました。
「でも今晩、校長先生が眠っている間に、主が校長先生の気持ちを変えてくれるように、みんなで祈ろうよ」
 私はそう提案しました。

 そしてその夜、眠りに就く前に私は、みんなでそうしようと決めた通りに祈りました。
「主よ、校長先生の気持ちを変えてください、先生が眠っているうちに」
 そして電気を消して、寝ました。

 それからしばらして、真夜中に私は目を覚ましました。私の寝室が、光で満たされています。
(この光はどこから入ってくるんだろう)
不思議に思い、天井の方を見上げてみましたが、電球がついているわけでもありません。
 次に下の方に目をやると、イエス様がベッドの端に座っておられるのが見えました。その服や肌が輝き、部屋中を明るく照らしていました。

 気がつくと、私はいつの間にかベッドから抜け出していました。パジャマだけになっても、私は夜の寒さをまったく感じませんでした。そして、イエス様のひざの上に座ると、イエス様は私を抱きかかえてくれました。私はそのお顔を見上げました。
「ああ…イエス様なんだ」
私は心から実感しました。

イエス様の手には、くぎを打たれた時の穴がありました。いまだ傷が開いたままで、血がついています。その傷を見た時、私は愛を感じました。イエス様は私のために死んでくださったのです。下の方を見ると、足には、くぎを打たれた時の穴がありました。サンダルはほこりだらけで、まるでさっきまで通りを歩き回っていたかのようでした。白くて丈の長い服を着ておられましたが、その服もきれいとはいえません。髪の毛はやや長めで、あごひげを生やしています。

 イエス様の顔を見て、私は心の中でこう思いました。
(なんだ、あなたはあんまりハンサムじゃないんだね、イエス様!)
するとイエス様がほほ笑みました。イエス様には、私が心の中で思っていることすべてがお分かりだったのです。イエス様は怒ったりせずに、むしろそれを楽しんでいるご様子でした。

 そして、次にイエス様の目をのぞきこんだ時、私はこう感じたことを今も覚えています。
(ああ…今まで見たことのある顔の中で、一番美しい顔だ)
 イエス様の目は、愛をいっぱいにたたえた海のようでした。

 みなさんは海や湖で、透明な水をのぞきこんだことがありますか?――あまりにも透明なので、かなりの深さがあるにもかかわらず、手を伸ばせばまるで、水底に触れることができるのではないかと思ってしまうくらい透明な水を。イエス様の目はまさにそのようでした。まるで何マイルも先が見えるかのように透明なのですが、そこに見えるものは愛なのです。イエス様の目をじっと見つめると、私には、完全さ、優しさ、聖(きよ)さ、愛、が見えました。

 イエス様のおそばにいることは、本当に素晴らしい経験でした。しかもイエス様も、私と一緒にいることができて、私以上に喜んでおられるご様子だったのです!

 イエス様が実際にお話しになった内容とは別にして、イエス様の目は多くのことを私に語ってくれました。すべてを書き出せば、それだけで分厚い本が書けることでしょう。

 イエス様の目を見ていると、このお方は、天のお父様から決して目をそらすことがない、ということが分かりました。イエス様は、天のお父様から私を訪ねる許可をいただけて喜んでいる様子でしたが、天のお父様のご意志以上にここに一瞬でも長くいてしまうことがないよう、注意しておられるのが伝わってきます。

 また、イエス様が神様のご意志を喜んでおられるのも分かりました。イエス様はまるで、「天のお父様、前回、あなたのご意志に従いましたら、その結果は本当に良いものでした。――だから今回もまた、私はあなたのご意志に従いたくて仕方がないのです!」と思われているかのようでした。

 もう一つ、私がその目から見て取れたことは、イエス様は、ご自分を拒む者たちさえも愛し続けておられる、ということです。イエス様は決してあきらめることなく、しかし愛をもって、ご自分を拒絶する者たちにさえ手を差し伸べてくださっているのです。
(もし僕が学校でイエス様のことを伝えようとするなら、僕もこういうふうにならなくてはならないんだ)
そういう思いが私の心の中にわいてきました。
するとイエス様が言いました。
「それで――君は学校で集会活動を始めようとしているんだね?」
「うん」


私はそう答え、そしてそれについて話し合いました。

 翌日、私の友人が学校のグラウンドを歩いていると、校長先生の姿が見えました。校長先生は、友人がそこにいるのを見つけると、土手の階段を駆け下りてきて、こう言いました。
「君たちを探してあちこち歩き回ったよ。君を見つけられて良かった。君たちが始めようとしている集会のことだが――。どうしたことか、一晩のうちに考えが変わってね。今は君たちにその集会活動をぜひやって欲しいと思う。どの教室を使いたいんだい?」

 そういうわけで、私は学校で一番良い教室を選びました。カーペット敷きで、天井にはシーリング・ファン付き、視聴覚機材も揃っています。私たちは一週間に一度、昼休みにクリスチャン・ミーティングを始めました。そこで、たくさんの生徒たちがイエス様を信じ、受け入れました。癒された生徒たちもいました。そして多くの生徒が聖霊に満たされたのです。時には100人を超える生徒が集まったこともありました。そのうちの何人かは、信仰の道を歩み続け、数年後に宣教師となりました。

 神様からの助けにより、私はその後の中学、高校生活において、誰にも妨げられることなく、毎日イエス様のことを伝道することができました。

 これは、当時、私が心を込めて書いた詩です。

私の救い主イエス様
生けるみことばイエス様
私の助け手イエス様
心からあなたを愛します

 あなたもまた、救われ、永遠の命を得ることができるのです。

 主なるイエス様に、その尊い血によって救ってくださるようお願いしてください。そしてあなたの霊の中へ入って来られるようお願いしてください。

 イエス様はあなたの祈りを聞いてくださることでしょう!


                      ジョン・エドワーズ